[governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

[McTim]

2010/12/2 Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net>:
> McTim wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All
>
> A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus
> on the following two questions.
>
> What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not
> being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
> What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international
> cooperation in these areas?
>
> IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which is
> enclosed.
>
>
> I find it highly ironic that your organisation wants both FOE as
> indicated in an earlier mail by Guru AND and a new, powerful, dynamic
> GIC which would (IMHO) stop folk like wikileaks.
>
> I submit that you can't have both.
>
>
>
> Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as taking
> the constant position of govt = evil

I've never taken that position.  I just don't want to give them any
more control than they already have in IG issues.

is able to defend infomation being
> censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional / beyond

I don't think I've ever defended censorship, if you have interpreted
my statements as such, perhaps you should read them again.


> processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point.
>
> Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this
> unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or Japan,
> let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down?


Perhaps, if that meant losing business to a boycott from those economies.

> Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an
> international structure/process

Neither.  An international structure would not have prevented a
government (the USG in this case) from (allegedly) putting the squeeze
on a corporation based in their territory.

As we have seen the USG is perfectly capable of seizing domains
without resorting to any strings in re: IANA/ICANN.

As I have said many times before, i'd like a "free-floating ICANN",
accountable to its governing board.  I see no need for any
governmental interference, whether from the USG or any other.

Are you going to answer my question, (to wit; Can I steal your
documents and publish them online as part of my FOE?) ...or should I
give up?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t